|
Public
Library of Science (PLoS)
A Recommendation from The Council of
Public Representatives (COPR)
December 23, 2002
COPR applauded the effort by then NIH Director Harold Varmus to establish
PubMedCentral as one means by which to expand access to published research.
Unfortunately the concept has been less than fully embraced by the research
community.
The recent announcement of creation of the Public Library of Science
(PLoS) and its intent to publish journals of Biology and Medicine online
will correct some of the deficiencies that contributed to PubMedCentral's
limited success. We are particularly encouraged by the announcement
by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) that they are supporting
the effort through a commitment to pick up the publication fees of the
researchers that they support.
PLoS will contribute to furthering transparency in the research process.
It will help to level the playing field by making the same information
available to all partners in that process, where current financial considerations
may result in public partners having limited access to published research.
COPR has held issues of transparency and partnership as central to
strengthening public trust and participation in biomedical research.
NIH's support for PLoS is consistent with its mission statement, particularly
with regard to the dissemination of research findings that it funds.
The recommendations listed below are offered here are the result of
discussions among members of the COPR and aim to encourage NIH support
for this endeavor.
Recommendation:
- The NIH should offer support for PLoS by explicitly stating that
NIH grant recipients may legitimately apply funds from their projects
toward the modest publication fees envisioned for PLoS.
- Consideration should be given to awarding administrative supplements
to relevant NIH-funded research, if only for a limited "introductory"
time period, as further means of expressing both real and symbolic
support for this program.
We realize that existing budgetary commitments and not knowing how
much an open ended commitment might cost, are real limitations. Consideration
might be given to setting aside a fixed sum for supporting such publication,
available to applicants on a first-come-first-serve basis. While we
hope that such activity could be carried out across all of NIH, we leave
open the question of whether it should be implemented by individual
institutes and centers or on a trans-NIH basis.
|